Case Digest (G.R. No. 76931) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In G.R. No. 76931 and G.R. No. 76933, decided on May 29, 1991, the Supreme Court resolved consolidated petitions challenging the Court of Appeals decision in CA-G.R. No. CV-04294, which had affirmed with modifications a July 16, 1984 ruling of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IV. On January 15, 1977, American Airlines, Inc. and Orient Air Services & Hotel Representatives, Inc. entered into a General Sales Agency Agreement granting Orient Air exclusivity in the Philippines. Under the contract, Orient Air was to remit ticket proceeds in U.S. dollars less commissions semi-monthly, receiving a 7–8% sales agency commission on American ticket stock and a 3% overriding commission on all transportation sales. On May 11, 1981, alleging a failure to remit US$254,400.40 for January–March 1981, American Airlines terminated the agreement and, on May 15, 1981, filed suit in the Court of First Instance of Manila for accounting, garnishment, and injunctive relief. Orient Air answered Case Digest (G.R. No. 76931) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- General Sales Agency Agreement
- On January 15, 1977, American Airlines, Inc. (“American Air”) and Orient Air Services & Hotel Representatives, Inc. (“Orient Air”) executed a General Sales Agency (GSA) Agreement.
- Under the GSA, Orient Air was appointed exclusive general sales agent in the Philippines for American Air’s passenger services, with duties including promotion, reservation facilities, distribution of materials, and supervision of sub-agents.
- Commissions under the GSA:
- Sales agency commission of 7–8% on fares sold on American Air ticket stock.
- Overriding commission of 3% on “all sales of transportation” over American Air’s services.
- Remittances clause required semi-monthly remittance of ticket proceeds, less commissions, held in trust by Orient Air.
- Termination clause allowed American Air to terminate for default or without cause upon 30-day notice; default included failure to remit funds.
- Alleged Breach and Termination
- On May 11, 1981, American Air alleged Orient Air failed to remit net proceeds of US$254,400.40 for January–March 1981 and, invoking the default clause, unilaterally terminated the GSA.
- On May 15, 1981, American Air filed suit in the CFI of Manila for accounting, garnishment, mandatory injunction, and restraining order.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Orient Air denied default, counterclaimed for unpaid overriding commissions, exemplary damages (₱1,500,000), and attorney’s fees (₱300,000).
- On July 16, 1984, the RTC dismissed American Air’s complaint, held the termination illegal, ordered reinstatement of Orient Air, awarded overriding commissions (US$84,821.31 plus US$8,000 monthly from January 1, 1981), exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and legal interest.
- Appellate Court Proceedings and Consolidation
- On January 27, 1986, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modifications: overriding commissions reduced to US$53,491.11 plus US$7,440 monthly, exemplary damages of ₱200,000, attorney’s fees of ₱25,000, 12% interest from July 10, 1981.
- On December 17, 1986, the CA denied American Air’s motion for reconsideration and adjusted the exchange-rate basis for commission payments.
- Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court; petitions were consolidated under G.R. Nos. 76931 & 76933.
Issues:
- Scope of Overriding Commission
- Whether Orient Air’s 3% overriding commission applies to total flown revenue or only to ticketed sales on American Air ticket stock.
- Whether the phrase “all sales of transportation … by Orient Air or its sub-agents” limits entitlement to ticketed sales.
- Validity of Termination
- Whether Orient Air’s retention of proceeds to cover its accrued commissions constituted contractual default.
- Whether American Air had lawful cause to terminate the GSA under the default clause.
- Compulsory Reinstatement
- Whether the courts may compel American Air to reinstate Orient Air as its general sales agent.
- Whether such reinstatement violates the principal’s exclusive right to consent in an agency relationship.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)